Addressing a multitude of counter arguments while providing a well-organized presentation based primarily on data. If only everyone presented their viewpoints like this! Thank you for your time. Absolutely one of the best videos I’ve ever seen. You better believe I’m sharing the hell out of this-and most importantly encouraging reasonable discussion!

@nasalspray8646

6 жыл бұрын

Sebastian Bellotti 100% agree. Even with facts like these, i don't think it will change many views though. Anyone willing to give up their freedoms for "security" is a miserable creature that doesn't understand rational thinking IMO

@rn7371

5 жыл бұрын

@@piquant7103 - Actually he provides the source data for each chart under the chart image. So if you belive his interpritation of the data is wrong you can go to the source and see for yourself.

@legin777

5 жыл бұрын

3 weeks later and no deleted post lol. Also don't delete it man. Peoples ideas change and its actually admirable to admit mistakes and correct them. Anyone claiming otherwise is either apparently perfect or just an asshole.

@thisdude703

4 жыл бұрын

In which society is it easiest to get rich? Contrary to common belief, it is not countries like the US or UK that create the highest number of rich people per capita but nordic social democracies like Norway and Sweden. Counter intuitive as it may sound, high taxes, generous welfare states and strong unions make a better environment for the people who want to earn huge amounts of money, than free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention. Watch the video in the link below for a detailed explanation. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c22Jz8aSYKiemLg.html

@mikelly0529

3 жыл бұрын

This is one of the most intelligent comments I’ve ever seen on KZread. I tip my hat to you sir,

Somebody give this man a cookie! I've learnt through this channel more than school and college combined.

@danielk3919

6 жыл бұрын

Do you like my Nickname? I've made you waste 5 sec Me too, I am only 15 and know alot more about economics. 2 days ago I did not even know what an Asset was.

@robfromvan

5 жыл бұрын

Do you like my Nickname? I've made you waste 5 sec but this is actually taught in college economics course. The economic freedom index and the difference between centrally planned economies and freer economies is discussed in first year macroeconomics

@JohnJones1987

5 жыл бұрын

Dat Asset

@nachannachle2706

4 жыл бұрын

You simply went to a sh!tty school and college.

@Bilbus7

Жыл бұрын

@@robfromvan pointless comment

I simply can't get enough of this guy. He breaks down seemingly impossible to comprehend economic concepts in a very practical way and is entertaining too !

It's so rare to find people who are able to articulate a political opinion that isn't just some emotional appeal. The way this guy presents a perspective and then actually supports it with facts and reasonable logic is so good. Really like watching these.

Here in Brazil that phenomenon can be seen quietly well, the salaries are in general low because an employee can cost at total up to 180% of it's salary due a truck load of taxes and we still have to pay income taxes afterwards.

@karsy579

5 жыл бұрын

What is the tax income used for that is so important?

Wow this guy is a beast, addresses every counterargument out there and still proves his point.

@TheWeakMinded

6 жыл бұрын

Andy Morejon doesn't seem to actually show the comparison between the states statistically in terms of 'more or less central control'. It matters if a state on the less controlled 50% is nearly identical to one on the other side

@KevinSmith-qi5yn

6 жыл бұрын

Sampling size is necessary for an analysis of this type. There may be little difference between the states actions, but it does take a great deal of research to conduct this type of analysis. Doing a 20% most centrally planned, and 20% most individually planned would have made the picture clearer.

@Tyrallion

6 жыл бұрын

dan26dlp But he did say where he pulled that data from. He didn't generate the more/less free data, he simply applied it for analysis.

“We’ll start with 1984.” Well, I certainly hope we don’t.

@furtim1

4 жыл бұрын

A delightful coincidence? I wish he had said why he chose that as a starting point.

Central planning always leads to everyone being equally poor...

@robertj.simpson354

6 жыл бұрын

Beer By The Numbers Except the politically connected!

@Biologist19681

6 жыл бұрын

BLITZMASCHINE since when is China the only successful emerging country? China's GDP has been growing because they have instituted some free market reforms But so has India, and they are growing as well. And neither can come close to the wealth of Hong Kong. Don't forget that China's growth is so great in part because it started so far behind. And despite that growth, it is still an extremely poor country.

@Biologist19681

6 жыл бұрын

BLITZMASCHINE you cannot have sustainable development without economic growth. China has built entire cities that are falling apart without ever having been used. Their development is a facade limited to a few major cities at the expense of the rural areas.

@magister343

6 жыл бұрын

Not so! Those doing the planning usually make sure that they personally remain quite rich, no matter how much it costs most other people.

@antoniochiappetta4833

6 жыл бұрын

BLITZMASCHINE Tell me what you know about China? You're delusional.

I like this and agree but it feels like he's telling me what I want to hear.

@sciencetube4574

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly how I'm feeling. I agree with the video and I can't find a weakness in the argument, but it feels weird.

@LeoAr37

4 жыл бұрын

It's the thing about statistics. A lot prove your point, a lot don't. He's showing only the ones that do, albeit they're a lot. He's also only presenting you to the counterarguments that he can actually respond to, while making it seem like he has responded to all of the counterarguments. I still agree with him though.

@AR-rg2en

4 жыл бұрын

@@sciencetube4574 exactly!

@elro5899

4 жыл бұрын

i will tell you what the conspiracy is: the right conspiracy - big companies will take the money from the middle class. the left conspiracy - governments will take the money from the middle class. the solution changing the money system. right now all money comes from debt. when a bank gives a loan it issues new money! not giving its own(or the depositors) money. thats why there is inflation. its legal counterfeiting. thats why some people get rich and most get poor - they buy assets with leverage. now we the citizens dont have money so big companies usually win through lobbying and contributing to politicians(and in secret demand favors). only when the middle class becomes rich again(like Bourgeoisie) we can be free.

@AR-rg2en

4 жыл бұрын

@@elro5899 true.

Please don't stop uploading this content. The human race depends of it.

It would be interesting to see how the states that are always in the economically free category compare to those who are always in the centrally planned category.

Stop making logical sense, I'm trying to be a liberal!

@RBlair1337

6 жыл бұрын

Washington and New York were on the list with Mississippi and Alabama and Arkansas. I don't this that easy, looks to me like liberal or conservative had little to do with it... maybe we need more info on what makes a state have individual division making.

@karsy579

5 жыл бұрын

Classically liberal ;)

@sethzweig2550

5 жыл бұрын

@@RBlair1337 agreed that we ought to know the criteria which qualifies a state as centrally planned or individually planned. It surprised me that CT, MA and CO (3 pretty liberal states) were more individualistic.

@ginosmovies

5 жыл бұрын

LMAO! I am working on eliminating logic in my thinking, its hard work!

@sciencetube4574

5 жыл бұрын

He's making a liberal argument...

Beautiful argument against slavery.

Best presentation i have ever seen. i enjoy learning from you prof. Antony Davies. I Love all the series. God Bless you and may you continue showing these insights.

What would be interesting is the same analysis of the comparative statistics focused only on the states that were in the same group for the entire period, and ignore the states that waiver back and forth. The reason for this is when you have a state going from one to the other you can have a delayed effect in actions so an action taken under one may not manifest itself until after the state government has changed. I suspect an analysis like this would show a larger disparity between the two systems, but it would be more realistic.

@jhespinosa

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, why did he change subjects from one group to the other all the time. I'm sure that invalidate his statistical analysis.

@jhespinosa

5 жыл бұрын

@Jesus Christ it's basic statistics. You can not change your subjects from one comparation group to the other that is what he did in this study.

@sjwarialaw8155

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I agree, that would be interesting, the delayed effect can be very important. The error becomes less relevant the longer the data goes, more years, less error. Anyway, this video, is just one more evidence that freedom is good, tyranny is bad, yet, so many people rejoice at the prospect of living under a totalitarian tyrannical technocratic neo-fascist dystopia. It boggles my mind...

@ernestbywater411

2 жыл бұрын

@@sjwarialaw8155 True, Sjwaria, but please don't make the common mistake of regarding Fascism as being different to Socialism as Fascism is a sub-variant of socialism in the same way Communism is a sub-variant. Both have the same basic agenda and just differ only a little bit on how it's handled.

@sjwarialaw8155

2 жыл бұрын

@@ernestbywater411 I would say they are both socialist in nature but communism and fascism have substantial differences in their approach, not just a little bit. National Socialism is probably in between both of them.

Thanks for the video

That really is the true separation today: Those who want to control you vs Those who want to enable you

Counter arguments? I'm awestruck by their mere consideration, haven't seen such an educational discourse in a long time.

I love these videos! Thank you! Keep them coming :-)

Animal Farm perfectly explains this

Your final conclusion, EXACTLY!!!!!!

But but but my ideas are for what I deem the greater good so I can force them to pay for and use them.

Great presentation

the conclusion was realy a kicker. realy nicely built punchline!

Outstanding

Centeral planning can be corperate as well as goverment. Individuals having more control over their desicions does enable the individual to persue the wealth that matters to them. However, wealth can be created by patterns of trading goods and services repeatedly and often centerilized desicons that create marketplaces, currancy, and marketing that encourage wealth and income. I encourage deeper thought into what creates the wealth that individuals desire and how govenments and corperations can enable that.

I love this economic analysis.

Great video

Adjust the charts for the cost of living in each state

Brilliant.

@hackerbrinelam5381

3 жыл бұрын

Oh my gosh, I am surprised that u are here Mike

In deciding whether or not a country is "centralized" or "individualized" in terms of decision making, is the basis quantitative or qualitative? Is it a mix? And what are the factors used in either method for deciding whether it is centralized or not? Also, are they not on a spectrum, or are they simply one or the other? I'd like to have these questions answered before being able to properly understand the argument.

@YashArya01

10 ай бұрын

At around 1:46 you can see a bunch of factors that go into calculating the Economic Freedom Index. You can find more information through Fraser. Yes, it is a spectrum and I presume the cutoff is between the top and bottom halves.

This is really interesting, but I want to see more details if someone can point me to some literature. First, he talks about decision making by the government; what decisions are those exactly? Second, how reliable is this measure of centralized vs. de-centralized decision making? Third, do we have data for prior years?

@stephens2663

3 жыл бұрын

Do you think that if we looked at prior years you would find different outcomes? I’m not being rude I’m genuinely curious actually.

5:26 - Your counter-argument showed an example where the aggregate would *not* mask individual effects. The original data was *median* household income. You then used the *mean* to make your "counter-argument". If 10 people make $50k, the median is $50k. If 9 people make $0 and the tenth makes $500k, the median is $0, not $50k.

@Biologist19681

6 жыл бұрын

I think that was an attempt to demonstrate how you can get a masking of unemployment. The mean wasn't used to make the counterargument which was that unemployment effects could be masked. It was used to demonstrate how unemployment effects could be masked.

@justinjarvis5681

6 жыл бұрын

I noticed the same thing. I think you might be on to something, intrepid

@BladeOfLight16

6 жыл бұрын

It really doesn't matter because he then goes on to look at other pieces of data that disprove the argument. His point was the argument doesn't stand up to the data.

@thefirehawk1495

6 жыл бұрын

Noticed that as well but doesn't change the point

Loved the info, but why did he switch the bar graph colors red & blue midway thru? Hmmm...

I'd really like to here more about how these state classifications were made... ranked by "centralized decision making?"

Thank you for the very informative video. Prof Davies, I'm curious how you would respond to the claim that your data is picking up the effects of PRE-EXISTING inequality/poverty/low GDP, etc. For example, in your counterarguments you show that centralized states clearly exhibit higher rates of all these things. But correlation may not mean causation. In my mind, it could be that pre-existing inequality/etc lead the populace to develop more centralized decision making. I would think that the causation might actually be running in the opposite direction. Thank you.

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

Correlation does not mean causation. But, the absence of correlation does mean the absence of causation. No matter how you slice the data, what you do not see is a correlation of centralized decision-making with better outcomes. Therefore, we can conclude that centralized decision-making does not cause better outcomes. That leaves us with, at the most conservative, the conclusion that individual decision-making does not make us worse off.

should be required viewing for all federal and state legislatures

What is interesting to me is that the states that are more individual decision making appear to be more negatively affected by changes in the market environment, often posting a higher unemployment rate in the year or two prior to recession except in the case of 2010, 2011, and 2012

Wait, why was the median being used to measure household income, but the average (mean) was being used in the counter-argument example?

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

For simplicity. Switching from median in the data to average in the example has no bearing on the argument. It just makes the counter-example easier to present.

@RBlair1337

6 жыл бұрын

Antony Davies if you were looking to show correlation and argue for causation why didn't you show a graph in a scatter plot? Maybe this could help researchbasics.education.uconn.edu/using-excel-to-calculate-and-graph-correlation-data/ Also using your analysis to predict results, the most on centralized states should be having economic issues. Therefore California, New York and HAWAII should be in an economic slump while the middle US should be growing - lreason.com/blog/2016/08/15/how-free-is-your-state-all-50-states-ran . But : CA is 11th, New York is 9th, Hawaii is 24th. www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-july-2015-2015-7/#25-ohio-22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222227

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

There are many other factors that influence socioeconomic outcomes. This is why you can find individual exceptions - as you indicate above. What's important aren't the individual exceptions, but the aggregate trend. That aggregate trend is most clearly seen in its simplest form by comparing averages between groups, as is done in the video. A scatter plot shows the individual exceptions. And, if we're going to see individual exceptions, then it becomes necessary to try to account for them. In turn, that means showing not a two dimensional scatter plot, but a multi-dimensional plot that looks at the effect of centralized/decentralized decision-making after filtering out the effects of the factors that contribute to the exceptions (e.g., population density, climate, demographics, etc.). As to causality, the data only show correlation. The presence of correlation is not the presence of causality. However, the absence of correlation is the absence of causality. And what you see nowhere in the data do you see a correlation between good socioeconomic outcomes and centralized decision-making.

12:04 why did you switch the colors? makes it look like you're trying to pull something.

@JavierHEC

5 жыл бұрын

Dalton Brown not sure, if anything it hurts his own point since red color = less centralized, while in the other it was opposite, hurting his own argument if someone is only visual lol

@vicenteyanez671

5 жыл бұрын

Javi thing is in the us red means republican and in the world red means communist. Blue in the us is democrat and in the world is capitalism

Am I the only one who had a hard time paying attention after he switched the colors at 12:00?

13:00 You changed the colors around to mean the opposite of the previous graphs. Confusing.

They need to combine this with Hans Rosling's stats in circles.

this goes will with Michael Munger's latest appearance on econtalk where he talks about his essay in learn liberty about permissionless innovation

The problem is that what you describe is a one-player system: the only thing that exists is the people in your narrative. The reality is that the system has at least two players: the people and the corporations. If the government withdraws from this then it is an unbalanced system, the corporations will end up exploiting the people as much as possible (the cost of an epipen will be $100+, the cost of education, healthcare will be unaffordable, the food industry will do whatever they want to crops and products etc). This is why you need the government to intervene and create a three-player system, where the corporations have something to fear from if they overstep their bounds and the people have a way of exerting pressure on the corporations via the government.

@jasonwick9449

4 жыл бұрын

Until regulatory capture happens. His final point addresses it but omits mentioning corporations explicitly, as he considers corporations just entities run by human beings.

In UK and USA, all the think tanks claiming that people should be weaned off Government welfare payments, all claimed the monthly payments for staff, from the government

What data sets are being used? All I see here are generalized ideas with possible correlations.

@Biologist19681

6 жыл бұрын

The data sets are shown at the bottom of each slide

Why wouldn't the benefits of division of labor, which is almost universally accepted, be applicable to govt jobs? Aren't they just the hired help providing a service?Do property and personal rights apply equally to each individual? If yes, shouldn't this be centrally enforced? Or should it by defined arbitrarily by each person's individual opinions about property and individual rights and enforced differently? Isn't the foundation of the US Constitution that there are principles that apply to all people within the geographic region, a collectivist contract applicable to all citizens, that no individual can breach without penalties?Is the presenter against a constitution that limits the govt hired help and the citizens from breaking that contract??

Why the (seemingly) arbitrary start date? I'm curious to see if this trend also holds true if you pick a different start year.

Good presentation. Takeaways for me: The rich already pay the majority of effective tax in both % and total dollars The poor receive a net refund, their effective tax rate is actually negative. They are actually being subsidized already. The middle class also pays little tax overall, and benefit the least from incentives and subsidies. The rich subsidize the poor in our progressive tax system, and benefit the most from incentives. The government has so far proven to be ineffective in efficiently allocating subsidies and pensions to uplift the poor. The system encourages lobbying for tax avoidance loopholes and leads to development of complex IRS regulation that is difficult and expensive to maintain administratively. Logically speaking, corporations are not individuals, they are groups of taxpayers working together to make a profit. Solutions - reform the IRS almost completely: 1. Charge a small tax on ALL types of financial transactions and asset transfers (ie VAT / Sales Tax 2.0) through banking all banking and payment systems, ATMs, and businesses through something like blockchain. This can be implemented cheaply and the banks should pay the cost. We've bailed them out already. They are in debt to the public. 2. Base income tax on expected disposable income after revenue (-) living costs, NOT on taxpayer's submitted P&L, which can be manipulated by public accountants anyway. 3. We should not tax corporations at all. We should tax the owner's and employees with a flat tax based on #2. 4. Local, State, and Federal governments should cooperate on a common information system to accurately report how each 1$ of tax is spent. 5. Analyze all government programs for and restructure for leanness and efficiency. Ask Congress to end the #ProgressiveTax. It's unfair, punishes success, produces less revenue for the government, and encourages corruption.

Conclusion: If less government is better, then ZERO government is best. Central planners have no right to take money by force and then decide what services to provide. The free market will be most responsive to the individual's needs. However, if we insist that government must exist, then prepare for an endless squabble over what services each person considers appropriate for their "user fees" (taxes). Some will consider it reasonable to spend billions on bailouts for too-big-to-fail banks, subsidies for corporations and endless "defense" spending. Others will ask why that money couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

It's a great video, but I have some questions, if anyone can answer that would be great: 1) What is the metric that decides whether to include a state/country in a more centralized decision process versus individual, and how do you back it up as being accurate? 2) Why do you use average income rather than mean income? 3) It's well known that states like CA pay higher salaries in response to higher costs of living. Shouldn't cost of living be accounted for when comparing income? It was shown that there were a few times where centralized states had higher incomes, and also that CA switched 8 times. Are these related? I might think that adjusting for cost of living would also smooth out the data in this case and be more significant.

@victorhopper6774

2 жыл бұрын

no for #3 cali has huge wealth and income inequality in spite of the wealth. ny is the same.

Agreed , Free trade under government supervision not benefit the government but to maintain the balance in order to protect the common good .

Great video how do you define centralized vs non centralized govts? Denmark Norway rank very high on the economic freedom index for some industries where did they fall?

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

The top third of countries on Fraser's freedom index scale versus the bottom third of countries. Because countries are more heterogeneous than states, the middle third becomes fuzzy. For example, for countries that are on opposite sides of the scale, but both close to the center, differences in economic freedom become small enough to be drowned out by cultural and historical differences.

@robfromvan

5 жыл бұрын

Jared Fontaine they have less govt intervention in their economies than the US but a higher redistribution of income

10:11 I have a cart, a horse, and no concept of sequence.

So at the end, self interest is brought up. The complication with central planning is, aside from competency, the fact that whoever has power will also act selfishly. However, under unregulated capitalism, this power tends to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy. So the crucial thing to understand is that this is a totalitarian regime, in it’s own way. So in order to prevent tyranny, you need to organize mutual dependence, and any central planning needs to have decentralized decision making, by which I mean democracy and transparency. We see the need for this when private entities with no mechanisms of transparency or democracy bribe politicians, or manipulate access to information on the internet. - in terms of economics, markets are better at producing value quickly. While socialist markets are better at this than capitalist markets, democracies are not as adept at mortal combat as totalitarian regimes, so the only way to achieve democratic industries would be a global consensus. Meanwhile, markets involving rational, self interested, agents w perfect information exclude some buyers and sellers, so it makes sense for certain goods and services to be dealt with publicly, to promote the general welfare. It basically depends on what is more important between promoting a higher rate of value creation or a wider distribution of resources, in terms of promoting a healthy and stable society. Finally, free agents in a market are not capable of protecting the environment, maintaining an infrastructure, preventing human-rights violations, or undertaking risky enterprises. The public sector has proved necessary for those things. I wish economics were truly as simple as the speaker makes it seem, but it is not.

I really don't like just one number, like the mean, or the median. Standard deviation or Confidant intervals should be included as well, when possible, in these examples.

I live in Alabama which was included in the centralized states. I don't understand that and would love to know how that was determined. I do live in the southeast corner which is not a good representation of the entire state in terms of poverty and such. This could answer why Alabama lives in the bottom of every economic measure made in spite of having the richest biodiversity in the country, some of the best Universities in the country and the most diversity of natural resources in the country.

As always, the answer is not quite that simple. High regulation is unwanted, but there are many legitimate cases where gov intervention other than physical protection is necessary to keep the scales from tipping too far.

@jasonwick9449

4 жыл бұрын

He didn't say only physical protection. He included government interference to stop things, for example, like harming the environment. We can all agree that 1920's-era Capitalism was excessive.

DO NOT USE Median Household income. That is not the work of a serious economist. Why? Because household size varies from one place to another as well as from one time period to another. Household size has fallen over the past 50 years, I believe from 3+ to 2.2 or something today. You're supposed to use median individual (personal) income. There's something else to keep in mind. California has a lot of illegal immigrants who ran across the border to live there. Many of their incomes, which are generally lower, are very likely included in income survey data which would skew California much lower than otherwise would be. And there's the fact that unwed childbearing and single motherhood has gone crazy high from what it used to be prior to 1970s, which depresses household and personal income data

Why am I not surprised?

How about comparing China and India? I think, to make a more proper comparison we should also include the effects of scale economics and ethnic diversity and path dependency (rich countries' history of mercantilism and colonization) . I think this should also be considered as a case for the states. I like watching your videos though.

The cost of living in many states isn’t calculated in dollars.

God bless heal and save you

Interesting, but bivariate correlations are seldom sufficient to reveal complex causal relationships. Economic growth and incomes in a sate depend on a host of factors: the educational levels of the state's labor force; the quality of the state's infrastructure; business taxes; personal income taxes; the multi0national corporations located in the state; cyclical factors. Michigan's economy is a bit of a yo0yo depending upon the health of the auto industry.

This is very dangerous. This guy is very well spoken and meticulous for sure. That makes him very easily believable. You're given a bunch of numbers and a seemingly reasonable interpretation of the data. You know what he wants you to know, and if you're not an expert in that area, you wouldn't know what he left out. For example, an argument could be made that the states that lean towards centralized decision making (bigger government) are the ones with big urban population. Conversely, the states that lean towards smaller government are the ones with more activities revolving around farming and other non-office activity. It's not difficult to understand that urban folks are much more likely to lose jobs (be counted as unemployed) than farmers. That's just one aspect that would affect his interpretation of the data, but was not considered.

I realy like this format, but I must say that only looking at data like this can lead to a biased view since all of these states face different economic shortcomings and strengths.

@victorhopper6774

2 жыл бұрын

this is not about potential. more about government effect on distribution. now two years later this effect would be off the charts in favor of less central planning.

5:18 Sad thing is that median income is decreasing. If inflation is not counted in it will be even worse. Its probably gross income, so when you count taxes (all of them) it will be even worse.

You will never see the other parties show actual statistics about unemployment and how it really is.

If I see those graphs, the first thing that comes to mind is: show me the statistical error bars nevermind systematic errors and that correlation does not equal causation. Taking those effects into account most of the years, both more centralised vs. more free are basically indistinguishable. Also, the yearly fluctuations are much much larger than the system choice. If you think about it It's actually a good presentation to showcase how you can read statistics and interpret it in a way that confirms your prior beliefs. (and I am not claiming the opposite is true, i.e. centralised is better)

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

The fact that states that flipped from free economics to central ones also flipped in results in most cases, generally shows the causation.

@AntonyDavies

4 жыл бұрын

I've published peer-reviewed articles that address your criticism. The differences I'm showing you in the video are statistically significant. That's a good discussion, but not appropriate for a general audience.

You will probably find that even in the individual choice states there are still centralised decisions made, just not as much. If these could be reduced even further then it would be even better for individual choice outcomes. I spend a lot of time in northern Thailand in poor areas and these people have the freedom to do pretty much anything to make money and do with their property what they want like build a house or farm without government intervention or approvals/certification.. they are happy and have economic freedom. They are not that poor that children have to work and they all seem a bit fat. If there was more government control they would be easy worse off as costs would increase dramatically

Central planning to capitalism is like railroads to automobiles - both have benefits and disadvantages, but former is very controller, rigid and inconvenient (needs to be driven to the station, waiting, etc), while the latter though less capable in terms of moving the goods give full control and freedom to the driver. In the end, the individual driver usually arrives faster.

I have a counter explanation. There definitely is corelation but what if causation is other way then you implied? What if in states where is more poverty (and so on) more people vote for socialists because they hope socialists can help them? That would also explained that corelation.

Read a few comments, and you All reall seems to like the numbers. Anyone considered critizes Them?

Watch this video to learn about Economic Freedom!

Dear Mr. Davis, what if the effect goes into the other direction? People in states with lower income and higher unemployment might vote to a higher degree for politicians that lean towards more centralized policies.

@godiamcrazydude

4 жыл бұрын

It isn't helping them though, since the next year they are still at a higher unemployment/poverty/income inequality rate. The argument in the video is still valid. While correlation does not equal causation, it certainly is evidence for it, and in this case with the opposite being true as well regardless of varying variables (lower freedom = lower standard of living), proves causation.

@konradsumer7008

4 жыл бұрын

@@godiamcrazydude Thanks for your answer. I read it through several times, but I do not understand how you rule out reverse causality here? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Let's say: A: Relatively high unemployment B: Leaning towards centralized governments How can you be certain of B -> A and rule out e.g. A -> B? Also: > While correlation does not equal causation, it certainly is evidence for it ... Do you mean "correlation is evidence for causation"? Well, correlation is necessary for causation but it's not sufficient. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

in another video you said that all humans strive for happiness. How does that correlate with economic fredom? www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2016/06/shsconf_rptss2016_01109.pdf this article for example suggets that while free markets correlate with higher hapiness limited government has negative effects on it.

still i think household income is a REALY BAD kpi .. average income per worker is FAR FAR more precise and masks nothing..

@ScottyNapaa

4 жыл бұрын

median income per resident* preferably even with an attempt at PPP

@TheyCalledMeT

4 жыл бұрын

@@ScottyNapaa would love that

✨

So... What do we do with this information? It's not like governments are going to give up their power for free?

By my age, 40, father already almost retired from work. This isn't a rich persons tale either, by 40, even in layman's terms, a worker should be more than midway in an established career. I feel left behind by choices made in my early youth, like joining the Army, "worst decision made in my life", or not taking at least one class per semester at a community college. By age 30 regardless I would've graduated from a college or technical school, cause 3 credit hours × 20 is 60 credit hours. By 2010-11, would've got through college.

@harleyb.birdwhisperer

2 жыл бұрын

And don’t dump on the military. You did your time, use the benefits.

It seems so pure to say the Government will make the decisions in some autocratic form, well, everyone has to pay extra for that. You have to pay for non-productive government entities. I'll DIY my decisions thank you.

Instead of splitting the data between central and individual, why not score it versus the actual metric value so you can show a relationship between the score of individualism and the economic metric of interest?

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

You can do that. The problem is that the analysis becomes less accessible to non-statisticians because using the metric values requires a discussion of random noise. Looking at aggregated data helps to smooth out random fluctuations.

...Somebody please help me understand this.... In their '5 Inequality Myths' video, he shows data stating that household incomes have been rising since the 70s (backing up the point that the middle and upper class are growing, poverty shrinking).... but the first chart in this video clearly shows income levels dropping steadily. (Weirdly, both sources cited are the US census bureau) You hide your libertarian bias very well, Mr. Davies, but it reveals itself in the data you choose to show! (but what should I expect from a channel called Learn Liberty) Still tho, great videos! I love how he focuses on facts (even if he is putting up a front of objectivity)

@AntonyDavies

4 жыл бұрын

You are comparing the first chart in the video above to the chart at the link below. The two agree. They appear not to because (1) the video above is showing individual years, and (2) states with low populations are given the same weight as states with high populations (because the point of the video above is to compare differences in economic freedom). The video below shows (1) snapshots at each decade mark, and (2) the numbers are for the economy as a whole (meaning that high population states are weighted more heavily than low population states). The chart above shows declining incomes after 2000. Look at the chart below and you'll see that the fraction of households in the poor income categories shot up post 2000. That matches what see in the chart above. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqFrkrt-cpzMhdI.html (at 12:35)

@bmwatrin

4 жыл бұрын

@@AntonyDavies cool I see it. thanks, I appreciate it!

the unemployment chat should start at 1984 same as the household income one. the fact it doesn't kind of skews the data slightly.

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

In all instances, you're seeing all the data that are readily available. The unemployment and household income data sets themselves start at different points.

@beau9956

6 жыл бұрын

okay, that's a fair enough response, thank you.

point of contention is your comment that on the Gini graph, down is good, up is bad. The implication that inequality is bad is a rather misleading perception. It depends on what we are looking at, and for what context. I don't find it bad that I am unequal to you Professor Davies, in economic education,, as it means I you have the ability to elevate my understanding. I don't find it bad that I am unequal to Mozart in piano and musical composition, as it means he could create music to inspire generations. Likewise, I am not at all upset that I am unequal to Elon Musk in finance and business, as it means that he is capable to creating a private effort to send man to Mars, and explore space, which has reduced space launch costs so drastically, that it made it profitable for private companies like Facebook to team together to launch satellites that connect internet to remote regions of the world that otherwise never could have afforded to, because it will increase the profits of Facebook. Inequality isn't a bug. It's a feature. A world in which we are all equal, is a world in which we never innovate and progress. What should be looked at, and stated, is that the greater the opportunities for individuals, the greater we should see such prosperity, which should be the sort of equality we look to.

5:18 it looks to me like the mhi is going down.

@onedimensionalchess4373

4 жыл бұрын

Oh yea, and what percent of the time does correlation imply causation?

@bmwatrin

4 жыл бұрын

@@onedimensionalchess4373 In their '5 Inequality Myths' video, he shows data stating that household incomes have been rising since the 70s (backing up the point that the middle and upper class are growing, poverty shrinking).... but the first chart in this video clearly shows income levels dropping steadily. (Weirdly, both sources cited are the US census bureau) he chooses data to support his libertarian bias Still tho, great videos! I love how he focuses on facts (even if he is putting up a front of objectivity)

@onedimensionalchess4373

4 жыл бұрын

@@bmwatrin Free markets generate value quickly, but they leave some participants out. Social projects generate value slowly, but include everyone. I see opportunities to use both tools, depending on the situation.

I raised my hand to ask the professor a question and when he didn't answer I remembered that I'm only in KZread college.

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

Post your question here. I'm happy to answer.

@hamnchee

6 жыл бұрын

Hello! First of all, fantastic lecture. I love the channel! I was wondering what specific metrics were used to determine if a State was more centralized vs. individualized. Was it a set of specific decisions similar across all states that would either go one way or the other, or was it based on the total number of laws in a given State compared to an average? Or something else? Thanks!

@AntonyDavies

6 жыл бұрын

Visda58 The classification of centralized vs decentralized is based on the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of North America and Economic Freedom of the World. Fraser looks at around 40 factors for each economy that include government consumption per capita, transfers, labor market restrictions, corruption, etc. Fraser combines these measures into a single metric on a 1 to 10 scale. In the video, I use that scale to distinguish between the two groups.

@hamnchee

6 жыл бұрын

I'll check it out. Thanks and keep up the good work!

Never too late, Travis. You’re half my age, get busy, dude.

Correlation /= Causation.

@MBarberfan4life

3 жыл бұрын

Correlation isn’t identical to causation, but correlation is evidence for causation (i.e. correlation makes causation more likely than it would be otherwise). It’d be quite difficult to find an instance of causation without correlation, DON’T YA THINK?!

The problems is that correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not hearing any strong argument in favor of causation. It seems nitpicking but I'm very curious about this part, it's the "big deal" part. Because there always can be another explanation, and we don't accept argument from ignorance. How can we exclude third factors? How can we exclude that the states with higher poverty rates (for different reasons) are moved by the voters towards centralized economic approaches? How can be sure that is not the other way around? Differences in the economic fabric produce different economic approaches in the political system? The case of inequality. It would be very interesting to discover that inequality produces more centralized policies. How can we exclude that? It seems to me there's room for arguments here.

@ewanhassall7350

6 жыл бұрын

But its not causation because you can look at individual counties and see how when they become more certralisted they lose economic growth and how when they lessen centralization they gain economic growth.

@GendoIkari

6 жыл бұрын

I don't understand your reply. The big deal is proving that centralizing the economy is the cause, and economic slow down is a cause. I suggest you to read something about the third factor C problem.

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

@@GendoIkari No, he's not trying to show a cause, he's trying to show the lack of correlation. Because of the lack of correlation, we see that central control doesn't cause better outcomes.

@GendoIkari

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrSpiritchild correlation doesn't imply causation and the other way around, as I already said :) Assuming that a lack of correlation imply a causation is not a strong argument, it's argument from ignorance. What if there are third factors?

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

@@GendoIkari You would be correct if two things were different about this presentation. These two things are, those that advocate a centralized controlled economy claim that centralized economies perform better then free economies, and two, had they not done a side by side comparison, ie, had they shown only the effect of centralized control, then you could claim lack of correlation doesn't prove causation. But, this presentation laid side by side the two systems, and showed that not only was there a lack of correlation, but the claim they perform better is not only false, but actually the opposite of what they claim. This is what shows the causation.

Median household incomes is not the correct metric. The correct metric to look at is individual income.

with great freedom comes great responsibility. If you're not allowed to be free, you're not allowed to be responsible. And if you're not allowed to be responsible, then what the hell is the point of life?

Why the US study was made with states switching between categories?

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

So it shows causation. It shows the states that flip between free economics to centralized economics and back, also flip from low poverty to high poverty and back respectfully in most cases, etc...

@jhespinosa

5 жыл бұрын

So if the policies kick in after changing type of organization, we are miscategorising. And if the change is made to in June and July how do you categorize it?

@jhespinosa

5 жыл бұрын

It’s not show causation ... sorry. In my opinion the way to do it will be to consider somehow the inertia...

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

@@jhespinosa It does show causation, as it shows whether you are free versus centralized consistently, or flip flopping between the two, poverty, lower wages, inequality etc, generally favor centralized economies.

@jhespinosa

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrSpiritchildI did not understand what you said, nor how do you drive any conclusion on poverty, lower wages or inequality. And if that will be true New York and Alabama should trade places.

The Al Bundys and Homer Simpson's of the world vs. the Milton Friedmans and Fredrick Von Hayeks of the world

I would appreciate some articles comparing the state in a more statistically significant way. Simply put, show us the methodology, because it seems like you picked two numbers and compare them (then realized you should check other variables like unemployment) but that is sadly not enough in my opinion. However, without you presenting the research I cannot judge those results and thus they are meaningless.

8:00 minutes of the video: When these 100,000 people stop looking for work and are no longer in the unemployment rate how do they pay their rent and feed themselves?

What "decisions" is he talking about?

Crushing communism and socialism 1 chart at a time.

@MrAnders88a

4 жыл бұрын

Kevin M McDougal compare USA to Europe en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

@paulkwan4624

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of problem in every political system , which one is better ? May be all of them served the people at the top , or some sort of secret societies ? Right / Wrong

The inequality in the USA is appalling => Decisions in the USA must be made centrally (and mostly they are -- the impact of public opinion on government policy is about zero). There are a few people making most decisions, and individual decisions are mostly reduced to a few undesirable choices. Which of two dishonest politicians gets your vote? Which of a handful of miserable jobs will you take, or starvation will be better?

@MrSpiritchild

5 жыл бұрын

'The inequality in the USA is appalling => Decisions in the USA must be made centrally (and mostly they are...' Do you really not see how your comment kind of eats itself?